British Police Have Disturbingly Deceived Many Activists Into Romantic Relationships

22 comments
  1. There really needs to be a tight limit on how long groups are “infiltrated”. If you’re a core member of a group for 6 months and find no evidence of crimes, why are you still there?!

  2. Seriously, just how charming were these lads and how desperate were the activists? Sounds like desperate mating on both sides.

  3. The only problem with refusing to allow undercover officers to sleep with suspects is that it would be immediately trivial to identify undercover police.

    Just not having undercover policing isn’t realistic, so before the red arrows fly, how would police infiltrate groups or gangs with any sort of strict restriction on their activities?

  4. Lush did a campaign about “spy cops” and they got a massive backlash from people who said they were anti police (one girl I know was incensed and wanted to take action against them.) A lot of them were more bothered about a shop doing a campaign than the police officers actively abusing women.

  5. The worst bit must be the undercover part, can you imagine being in that role and knowing that most of not all the things you are doing and saying are just lies?

    How soul destroying must that be to be doing absolutely nothing that betters yourself?

    It’s actually quite destructive if you think about it.

    Edit: yes I’m aware that it’s fucked up for the ‘spied upon’ too.

  6. Good to know the police are working hard. Can’t say I’ll ever sympathise with an activist, they bring it on themselves by being a blight on society.

  7. You do realise they are two separate things right?

    Undercover police work / relationship.

    The falling in love and sex with someone is completely incidental to the undercover role.

    Furthermore, not a single pause for thought from anyone in the comments as to why the police would invest so much time/money/risk/individuals life into investigating these groups.

  8. Wtf is this article…

    Headline – “many activists”

    First para – “unknown number of activists”

    Second para – “we spoke to one activist about events 20 years ago”

    Atrocious journalism.

  9. > but what he hadn’t told her was that his son’s mother, to whom he was still married, was living in a house less than ten miles away

    The article does not state that the relationship was intimately sexual, but should it have been so, one can but hope that this nigh-on bigamist was swiftly divorced.

Leave a Reply